The cops get what they deserve if they were hitting that man on the ground with the police baton, I mean come on they sat on him with 4 they could have cuffed him with no problems. But then again, we can't see what the cop is actually hitting. Should think more responsibly before hitting people with their stick.
Police brutality backfires!
- Thread starter Iraklis F.C.
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,712
No he wasn't, he was clearly restrained with 4 policemen sat on him. And no, it's not up to them what they judge to be necessary force. Do you think their lives were in danger from the restrained man?
Got what they deserved. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever to use the baton on that lad, he was not going to cause any more disturbance and was pinned to the ground.
The police need to learn they are there to serve and protect us, they are public servants, not Judge Dredd.
The police need to learn they are there to serve and protect us, they are public servants, not Judge Dredd.
I personally think even if he was struggling, the baton was not needed.
The only situation the police should use a baton is when they are being subjected to, or need to stop physical violence.
To everyone who thinks using the baton was fair, and was required, well... I hope you have an unpleasant encounter with a baton.
The only situation the police should use a baton is when they are being subjected to, or need to stop physical violence.
To everyone who thinks using the baton was fair, and was required, well... I hope you have an unpleasant encounter with a baton.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
I'm increasingly growing a distaste in my mouth reading these forums.
That video is disgusting.
That video is disgusting.
Yes, maybe it was, what's your point? Maybe your problem is you have no argument against my views.
If I invite everyone from OcUK to a party, and someone gets out of control, but not violent, would it be ok for me to order 3 of my security guards to pin him down and hit him with a baton?
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
To eject him from YOUR house, after he agreed to be there? Absolutely.
Yeah i'm surprised not more people noticed that... the tool who did it got off very lightly from the crowd.
Oh yes I can.
At 0:09 they bring him down. He is lying on his side when they start to pin him. One cop blatantly kneels on the guy's legs while another cop grabs his head and a third takes his arms & torso.
From 1:13 onwards you have a clear view of his feet, which are definitely pointed down, proving that his entire body is now facing the ground (look for the heels of his shoes, which are positioned higher than the toes). He is now completely incapacitated by four cops, one of whom is sitting on his legs and straddling them.
You can also see that the flag pole the guy was carrying has now been used to immobilise his legs; it is either threaded between them or simply laid across the back of them. Either way, it is being pressed heavily against his legs by the cop who is sitting on him.
At 1:18 the cop on his right starts to hit him with the baton.
At 1:21 the cop sitting on his legs punches him a couple of times while the cop on his right continues to beat him with the baton. You can clearly see between the legs of the cop with the baton, and from that angle it is very evident that the guy's head is being struck - not his arm, which has been pinned.
Watch the video. Pause at the relevant points.
There is not one single point at which the guy is able to retaliate. He is completely and utterly helpless. On a related note, are these guys even cops? I can't make out the writing on their jackets.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
I can't see the head being struck there. Neither can you from the angle. It is most likely arm/shoulder being struck or make it 'dead'.
This is a standard tactic against a resistive (not necessarily aggressive, or retaliating) opponent. It is to prevent a bone break - which can easily happen - when being manhandled and cuffed. I've worked with police on control and restraint and been 'handled' in this way. It isn't pleasent - of course not, and the appropriateness is questionable. But it isn't brutality - at all.
It's like people thinking stress positions are torture. Every word has a sliding 'amplitude'.
This is a standard tactic against a resistive (not necessarily aggressive, or retaliating) opponent. It is to prevent a bone break - which can easily happen - when being manhandled and cuffed. I've worked with police on control and restraint and been 'handled' in this way. It isn't pleasent - of course not, and the appropriateness is questionable. But it isn't brutality - at all.
It's like people thinking stress positions are torture. Every word has a sliding 'amplitude'.
They are not police. They do not have the powers to do something like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKK9...&feature=PlayList&p=9EF78A759AF8A0D5&index=15
Note the correct label of "private security force" in the info.
Last edited:
I have no interest in debating this with anyone because I have my views and they won't change but wishing violence on someone is pathetic.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 3,017
- Location
- Midlands
What happened to the guy in the white shirt at 0.42 in the middle of the screen? He fell over himself and face planted the soil at full pelt lol
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2007
- Posts
- 2,408
This, and its not like he was any threat to them. They got what they deserved.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,710
- Location
- South Wales
No they didnt. Getting kicked by 50 people at once? maybe if 3-4 fans had a go i probably wont have said anything? But you have got 150 cowards kicking someone
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2007
- Posts
- 2,408
How is that childish, at all? He was saying they used too much force, which they did.
Completely contrasts with your next post as well. You're a moron.
You know what part of the post I was referring to then? Or are you just picking fights over things that do not concern you. I'm not sure how anyone could think I found the first sentence childish.
LOL
Proof please? Why would people be at risk from broken bones while being "manhandled" and cuffed? Are the police so incompetent that they can't cuff someone without breaking their limbs? Or is this an admission that they just love to lay the boot in for no reason?
If I offer my arms without resistance to a cop who wants to cuff me, can I expect my arms to be beaten savagely with a baton? And why only one arm? Your logic demands that both are suitably "softened up". How does beating an arm prevent it from being broken, by the way?